Agreed - he's desperate to get back to #1 and seems to be playing in as many tournaments as possible. After his exit in Miami I'd be surprised if he's willing to drop more ranking points so soon.

Does anyone know why he didn't apply for MC originally in the first place?

Maybe he thought he'd repeat his success in IW and win Miami as well!

Seriously though, he does have ranking points to defend in MC, having reached the QF last year where he was bumped out by Jurgen Melzer in an unchactertistically poor performance - after which he announced his retiral to Switzerland to practise on clay "for tougher things ahead" - so maybe the memory of that ignominious defeat is troubling him and he would prefer to go off and practise instead.

Quote from Fed after his defeat by Melzer. Note, once again, the praise-cum-excuse ...

"It's always disappointing regardless against who you lose," said Federer, a three-time former runner-up to Rafael Nadal at the Monte-Carlo Country Club.

"I don't think I played terrible. Obviously, it was still the first week of clay, so I don't expect myself to play my very best. I think it's been a solid tournament.

"I think I should have definitely gotten one of the sets. Every time I had this slight opening, things didn't go my way. I thought he did well. He played aggressive, played the right way he was supposed to."

He was brilliant in that match, I really think he'd have won had his painkiller injection not worn off.

How can you say that? Remember what happened in Rome? Andy was only 2 points away from victory against Novak and still couldn't manage it. And in this case, he was still a set away. I think it's safe to say that he would have made it competitive in the 3rd had the injection not worn off, but to say that he would have won it is IMO drawing too much conclusion based on something completely unseen, especially when this was still clay and he was up against players like Nadal and Djokovic who are nothing short of mental giants and Andy has already left a trend for not closing out matches that were his. So taking those two trends into account it’s not at all as conclusive.

Another thing I’d say is that, while Andy really thrives against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Federer etc. basically on any surface, his real danger will always lie in earlier rounds of any GS and RG won’t be any different and that is, whether there’s any pressure or not. In order to get there where he’s more than likely to meet one of the top three if not two, he will have to get past a number of players who maybe equally good on clay and may pose a serious danger on Andy’s path. So we should take that into consideration.

I’ve always maintained that Andy’s first Slam would come on hard first given that, that’s his best surface. He’s already made 3 finals there after all. Federer’s first Slam was on grass though some might say his best surface is hard but I’d say he’s equally good on both; Novak’s first was on hard and Nadal’s first slam was on clay, hardly any surprise in either cases. That’s not to say though that Andy’s not going to win either Wimbledon or RG before he wins either AO or USO because he just might, but that would be an exception and exception can’t be taken as a rule.

"Another thing I’d say is that, while Andy really thrives against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Federer etc. basically on any surface, his real danger will always lie in earlier rounds of any GS and RG won’t be any different and that is, whether there’s any pressure or not. "

Err...certainly not in Grand Slams. Andy's record against the big 3 in Slams is truly woeful. Unless I'm mistaken the only one he has beaten is Nadal. He's beaten him twice but Nadal retired injured in the Aussie Open semi-finals. Andy is almost certain to lose to Fed, Nadal or the Rubber Man in Slams. He's almost certain to win against anyone else though. He's unlikley to lose early in a Slam because its best of 5 and that just makes a shock far more unlikely.

Wasn't this one of the main reasons he took Lendl on board? Lendl's plan is apparently to get Andy to beat the top three regularly in other tournaments, presumably to get it into his head that if he can beat them there then he can do so in a Slam. The block, after all, does seem to be a mental one.

"Another thing I’d say is that, while Andy really thrives against the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Federer etc. basically on any surface, his real danger will always lie in earlier rounds of any GS and RG won’t be any different and that is, whether there’s any pressure or not. "

Err...certainly not in Grand Slams. Andy's record against the big 3 in Slams is truly woeful. Unless I'm mistaken the only one he has beaten is Nadal. He's beaten him twice but Nadal retired injured in the Aussie Open semi-finals. Andy is almost certain to lose to Fed, Nadal or the Rubber Man in Slams. He's almost certain to win against anyone else though. He's unlikley to lose early in a Slam because its best of 5 and that just makes a shock far more unlikely.

I don't think at all that it's truly awful given his circumstances. Mind you, he’s the last one to actually turn pro among the top four. He also has the kind of pressure that no one has. These things matter in a major way when you face an experienced player like Federer in the final who also happens to be an all time great.

He has beaten Nadal twice. You can say Nadal was injured (never really bought it) but Andy was already 2 sets to love up when he got supposedly injured – not that they were going toe to toe. But most importantly, he beat Nadal when Nadal was in top form. He was THE guy to beat around that time. Neither Federer nor Djokovic could do this. So let’s give credit where credit is due. Mind you also, that had he met with Federer in a qtr final or at least in the semi, you can’t say, he wasn’t going to beat Federer just like he beat Nadal. Unfortunately he’s met with Federer both in finals. I am sure even Federer knows he got lucky both times.

As to Novak, well, they’ve only met twice and while his AO final was as given as his other two finals due to same reasons stated above, he did put up a great fight against Novak in the semi. Again the match being semi made all the difference as you can see which speaks volume about the pressure.

I am quite sure, if Andy didn’t have the pressure and if he were from a country where the whole nation didn’t depend on him to free them from this 75+ year burden they have, Andy would be a multiple Slam winner by now but hey.

How can you say that? Remember what happened in Rome? Andy was only 2 points away from victory against Novak and still couldn't manage it. And in this case, he was still a set away. I think it's safe to say that he would have made it competitive in the 3rd had the injection not worn off, but to say that he would have won it is IMO drawing too much conclusion based on something completely unseen, especially when this was still clay and he was up against players like Nadal and Djokovic who are nothing short of mental giants and Andy has already left a trend for not closing out matches that were his. So taking those two trends into account it’s not at all as conclusive.

Yes this is a good point, we will never know what would have happened. He was looking very convincing in the second set though, taking it 6-2 and when I was watching I felt confident about the third set. But like you say, he was even closer in the Djokovic match and didn't come through so there are no guarantees that he would have won.

Yes this is a good point, we will never know what would have happened. He was looking very convincing in the second set though, taking it 6-2 and when I was watching I felt confident about the third set. But like you say, he was even closer in the Djokovic match and didn't come through so there are no guarantees that he would have won.

If and buts - the food of speculation ... (a) I don't think Andy would have beaten Nadal in Monte Carlo last year even if the injection hadn't worn off, and (b) it's debatable if he'd have beaten Djokovic in Cincinnati had the latter not been forced to retire with a shoulder injury - the severity of which some have questioned given that he then went on to win the USO in what was one of the most brutal matches I've ever watched. However, Djokovic had this to say after that match - "In big matches, the winner is decided by small margins, a couple of points. I guess the winner is the one who believes in victory more." Andy has to start BELIEVING he can be the victor when it comes to Slams.